51–60 of 80 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The NSA has a history of being so offence-focused that it wouldn't be very wise to trust them.
Alternatively, it has a public reputation of being extremely offense-focused.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The government should define what's okay and what's not (aka regulation), and let private entities duke it out for a reasonable share of the economic value.
Why not let consumers decide on what's better for them? What does centralized (and politicized) regulation do better than then free market?
There is already an open source payment system which needs a bit fine-tuning so it can scale to payments. No government, serves all unbanked. Solves the same problem. You know the name.
Even with cash, in the vast majority of cases you physically hand over the cash to someone you can see at a location you can return to. In the event of a transaction for physical goods at least you have the good in hand, and in the event of services thanks to government regulations most expensive services require licenses so you can later find the person who failed to perform the service you paid for in cash to your satisfaction. Also, one can create an actual, literal, "paper trail" by requesting a physical receipt-- one that serves as evidence of the exchange and would ideally contain contact information.
With your un-named payment system, can I do a "charge back" if I order some totally legit good or service from an unknown actor in an unknown location in the event of the non-delivery or fraud?
Also, no payment system that requires an internet-connected device (and a powerful one at that if no third parties with the ability to store and process large amounts of transaction data are involved) will ever, ever, despite the protestations of its acolytes, between now and the heat death of the universe, ever be able to serve the unbanked.
That why with the IVL part of the proposal is a physical card that can be used, if a patron is poor and unbanked and does not have an internet-connected device, to transact with the ledger via a trusted intermediary.
There is already an open source payment system which needs a bit fine-tuning so it can scale to payments. No government, serves all unbanked. Solves the same problem. You know the name.
No payment system will ever succeed unless someone can use it to purchase something from an unknown person, receive their good or service, be dissatisfied with the good or service, return the good or service, and then be assured of a refund from an unknown and untrusted actor. Even with cash, in the vast majority of cases you physically hand over the cash to someone you can see at a location you can return to. In the…
Escrow systems are inherently a second layer atop a currency. The "issuing authority" of a currency does not engage in such dealings with the users of the currency; these arrangements are made by the seller (or a palatable third party on the seller's behalf) or by the buyer (or a third party contracted by the seller, e.g. a credit card company).
With the "un-named payment system", escrow is entirely possible and has been successfully set up in many instances, most notably on popular darknet markets. A type of protocol-layer escrow is also possible, by the way, through the use of multi-signature transactions.
> payment system that requires an internet-connected device
This is exactly what the OP article is proposing to build, and what these comments are discussing.
> no third parties with the ability to store and process
SPV and other "light" wallets that remain cryptographically verifiable and decentralized without needing a constant, high-bandwidth connection exist and are, in fact, the default option for most people.
> “Why should we have to pay to use a payment system? It’s like paying to use a street,” Hockett asked at a press conference announcing the proposal. I'm probably ambivalent about a "public" banking system, but this comment seems to ignore that we quite literally do pay for using streets in the form of taxes (indirect) and tolls (direct).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The post office used to offer free checking accounts and basic banking services. They should reintroduce that with updated digital services as well.
I can only speak about my local post office, but I can't imagine wanting to deal with their customer service if anything were to happen to my money.
Generally seems like a good idea, minus the part about it being state owned and operated. If it's operated by the state, it will probably be a disaster. Many governments can barely keep their Windows machines up to date, leading to ransomware attacks. It would be a shame if people's money were held hostage for ransom.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No payment system will ever succeed unless someone can use it to purchase something from an unknown person, receive their good or service, be dissatisfied with the good or service, return the good or service, and then be assured of a refund from an unknown and untrusted actor. Even with cash, in the vast majority of cases you physically hand over the cash to someone you can see at a location you can return to. In the…
> return the good or service, and then be assured of a refund from an unknown and untrusted actor Escrow systems are inherently a second layer atop a currency. The "issuing authority" of a currency does not engage in such dealings with the users of the currency; these arrangements are made by the seller (or a palatable third party on the seller's behalf) or by the buyer (or a third party contracted by the seller, e.g…
If you read the white paper, which apparently nobody else did, they say (paraphrased) "Look, this thing is online but we recognize that not everyone has a computer or cellphone so part of the system is a physical card like a debit card that poor people can use".
The piecemeal attempts to create a rational payments system are getting to the point where the Fed just needs to acknowledge the need for a free/secure/unified infrastructure run and regulated by the government. They are starting to do this (Fed real time payment + settlement system) but not fast enough. Other countries laugh at us when we talk about the checks we have to write, the scams we endure with mistaken paym…
In the EU with SEPA, there's roughly the same functionality but with the memo, and that is the standard way to pay for things, without any third party billing platform being in the middle.
There is already an open source payment system which needs a bit fine-tuning so it can scale to payments. No government, serves all unbanked. Solves the same problem. You know the name.
No payment system will ever succeed unless someone can use it to purchase something from an unknown person, receive their good or service, be dissatisfied with the good or service, return the good or service, and then be assured of a refund from an unknown and untrusted actor. Even with cash, in the vast majority of cases you physically hand over the cash to someone you can see at a location you can return to. In the…
This is a form of insurance and someone could sell this service on the un-named payment system. This business would be profitable as long as most transactions are legit, and part of the profit would be used to reimburse bad transactions.